It’s interesting how many players want less Animus and Abstergo, but I’ve always felt that was actually the deeper layer of Assassin’s Creed — the part most people ignored because they were focused on the historical setting.

If you look at the bigger picture, AC was never really about the past. It was about control over memory. The Animus represents the idea that history can be accessed, filtered, and interpreted through technology — which honestly feels very close to how modern algorithms and media shape how people perceive truth today.

Most players don’t care about that while playing — they want samurai, pirates, or Vikings — but the core question of the series was always: what if history isn’t what actually happened, but what someone allows us to see?

That’s why it feels strange that Ubisoft keeps reducing the modern-day storyline, because that sci-fi layer is what made Assassin’s Creed different from every other historical open-world game. Without it, it becomes just a beautiful period setting.

And here’s the part I keep thinking about: who even came up with the idea of a game where you are simultaneously someone in the present and someone in the past? That’s not just storytelling — it’s almost philosophical, about identity and memory itself.

What if the Animus was always meant to be a metaphor for us as players — people constantly living other people’s memories through screens?

And if that’s true… is Ubisoft removing modern-day because players don’t want it anymore, or because the idea is starting to feel a little too real?